D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[MichaelSomething]

I mean, in indie terms, 5e is playable, but only in the sense that it doesn't seem to set out to accomplish anything.

I thought people wanted it that way? To be free from rules so that People are free to play D&D as they see fit!

 

[tetrasodium]

I thought people wanted it that way? To be free from rules so that People are free to play D&D as they see fit!

Shades of grey. Even in shades of grey there are points where the distinction is meaningless. Wotc's decision to build for utmost simplicity at all costs claiming it makes things modular hackable easy to adjust & whatever while only providing support of that modularity in ways that take the system from 9-10 to 11-12 only exacerbates the extreme.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is equally true in 4e. It is just that DC10 is literally described as a medium difficulty level 1 DC. It is also an easy difficulty level 4 DC (or so, I am not going to look it up). This acknowledges that the PCs progress. So, a basic level 1 tree might be Medium Difficulty to climb, and a Mighty Fey Oak might also be Medium Difficulty to climb, but the Fey Oak is located in a level 15 area, so the DC is a level 15 Medium DC. Fictionally the Fey Oak IS a lot harder to climb, relative to a regular tree in a mundane forest. Its role however, as a moderate obstacle that will probably be overcome trivially by athletic PCs and maybe with a bit of trouble by others, is basically the same. This promotes understanding and appropriate use of story elements by DMs. It is clearly needed in order for the levels of SCs to be gauged!

You gotta see how that’s more complex than 5e’s DCs and also not needed in 5e? Like, a level 1 can hit DC 20, and a level 20 can fail DC 20. Everyone is within that band. No need to look at charts or tables, you just judge difficulty by the measure of an average person, and then go. The level 13 Rogue just succeeds on lots of checks, and is more capable of attempting things that would be impossible for the average person.

Here is a way that I would frame the arrangement of 5e as an action resolution engine and its implications upon play:

* Imagine a PBtA game. Lets take Dungeon World.

* Remove the imposed, table-facing, bell-curve producing spread of results (no 6-, no 7-9, no 10+). In its place have the GM decide the spread of results on any given move and leave it up to them how this spread is informed (genre logic...process logic...who is the baseline...everyday people...adventurers...adventurers of the level of the party?). Now leave it up to the GM if those spread of results are table-facing or GM-facing.

* Remove the Soft Move (make a threat) and Hard Move (and follow through) as explicit, encoded, principally-informed moves of proper GMing (the when, the why, the how) that gives structure/constraint to the GM's efforts.

* Remove the Follow the Rules and Play to Find Out tenants of the GMing agenda and replace them with Interpret the Rules and Decide When to Abide/Change/Ignore Them because Your Job as Lead Storyteller is to Make An Interesting Story and Memorable Experience Happen.

---

It should be abundantly clear that (a) Dungeon World would go from being a homogenously structured and played experience to a heterogenous one (across the distribution of all tables), (b) the GM signal on the trajectory of play would be increased, and the downstream effect would be that (c) the actual experience of play would be fundamentally altered.

That doesn't make play better or worse...but it does make it significantly different in terms of play priorities and in the actual experience of the play (by all participants) itself.

And those differences are a major way in which a group will determine whether to play one type of game or the other, and whether it’s better to hack one game or switch to another game.

 

[Manbearcat]

And those differences are a major way in which a group will determine whether to play one type of game or the other, and whether it’s better to hack one game or switch to another game.

I think I'd put it as:

In 5e this was intentfully designed. Therefore, if you're playing 5e, you accept that this is "All Feature", "No Bug." WotC specifically designed in heterogenity; each GM making the game their own.

 

[prabe]

I think I'd put it as:

In 5e this was intentfully designed. Therefore, if you're playing 5e, you accept that this is "All Feature", "No Bug." WotC specifically designed in heterogenity; each GM making the game their own.

I think it's worth acknowledging that not everyone who plays 5E by choice would regard any choice--let alone every choice-- in its design as "all feature, no bug."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I thought people wanted it that way? To be free from rules so that People are free to play D&D as they see fit!

That is what we are being told, and I don't see a lot of point in disputing it, though I have other opinions that I will not voice. I mean, they DO want it that way, they've said so and that seems like pretty definitive proof to me! Nor am I displeased with people getting what they want, though some of us felt that we would have gotten more with a different design. I think it is pretty clear that all of our goals could not possibly live within one system that WotC was actually prepared to publish. So here we are.

Anyway, I am mostly happy designing and playing my own RPG. I sometimes play a bit of 5e with a few people, mostly because I'm not rude enough to demand they all do something else. Actually the last group I played with has gone back to 3.5 anyway, which I find rather silly, but they also have their opinions. Soon enough I'll have to get out and recruit some people for a new game. Not sure yet where that will go...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it's worth acknowledging that not everyone who plays 5E by choice would regard any choice--let alone every choice-- in its design as "all feature, no bug."

The core design of "GM decides", though, seems to be critical to accept this way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I'd put it as:

In 5e this was intentfully designed. Therefore, if you're playing 5e, you accept that this is "All Feature", "No Bug." WotC specifically designed in heterogenity; each GM making the game their own.

I don't see that that follows. Unless your definition of "bug" is by necessity a design feature that's accidental.

 

[loverdrive]

I thought people wanted it that way? To be free from rules so that People are free to play D&D as they see fit!

Someone here once mentioned a term "anti-design"... And i think I've found the definition of it.

 

[prabe]

The core design of "GM decides", though, seems to be critical to accept this way.

You keep saying that. I'll admit the DM in 5E decides on an ability check if it's necessary to roll (as opposed to autopass or autofail) and the DC if the dice are involved. That's where the decisions end, though.